The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Unz Archive
Race/IQ: Incorporating the Racialist Perspective
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

TAC-RaceIQ As I’ve often told my friends over the years, the careful investigation of racial and ethnic differences presents huge difficulties in present-day American society.

On the one hand, the topic is a very interesting and important one, especially in a society with America’s enormous diversity, but the powerful social taboos surrounding such discussions have dissuaded the vast majority of skilled and objective academics from dipping more than a toe into these treacherous waters.

Therefore, this vacuum of discussion has been filled by a considerable number of small but energetic racialist websites and bloggers, usually maintaining anonymity, whose research competence tends to be very mixed and whose analysis is usually molded by a gripping ideological framework. But with neutral academics being AWOL, the data collected by this racialist community is often the only game in town.

A perfect example of this is found in my own recent Race, IQ, and Wealth article, in which nearly all of my IQ data was obtained from the published writings of Richard Lynn, a leading academic hero of racialists worldwide. As it happens, for nearly a decade it had seemed obvious to me that the likely conclusions to be drawn from Lynn’s data were exactly the opposite of those long believed by Lynn and his acolytes, and I think I have now forcefully made that case. But without Lynn’s research my own analysis would have been impossible. If others outside Lynn’s ideological circle had closely examined the data earlier, I am sure they would have come to much the same conclusion.

Similarly, although Hispanic-friendly institutions such as the Ford Foundation, the New York Times, and Ivy League academic departments deploy annual budgets totalling in the billions of dollars, the first and only place I learned of evidence for the remarkably rapid recent rise of Mexican-American IQs was at The Inductivist, a quasi-racialist blogsite operated as a part-time hobby by an ordinary individual. Supporting evidence of this IQ rise was later privately confirmed to me by another rightwing or quasi-racialist blogger, who asked to remain unidentified, perhaps concerned that his blogger friends might grow angry with him.

Indeed, the overwhelming majority of the attention that my Race/IQ article has so far received has come from similar quarters, with such racialist blogsites as HBDChick, Occidentalist, and Evo and Proud having made my article nearly the sole focus of their discussion over the last week or more, including well over a dozen separate posts and hundreds of comments. Certainly most of the reactions in these venues has been angry and often vituperative, but it has also often been quantitative and technical, and I am absolutely willing to absorb the insults of the former to gain the value of the latter.

For example, a sharp-eyed racialist blogger carefully checking my numbers quickly noticed that a paragraph in one of my columns had incorrectly used “British” where I should have said “German,” allowing me to immediately confirm the mistake and publish a correction on the web.

On a far more substantive point, my analysis had mentioned that although the Ireland Irish seemed to have had very low IQs as recently as the early 1970s, the American Irish were significantly above the white average in Wordsum-IQ. But one of the bloggers discussing my claims discovered that the GSS “Irish” category actually comprises both the Scots-Irish and the Catholic Irish, and the latter actually had nearly the highest Wordsum-IQ of any American ethnic group, which greatly strengthens my argument, given the enormous IQ gap with their cousins in Ireland. Since the Catholic Irish are also among the most highly urbanized American populations, this finding further reinforces my rural/urban hypothesis.


But perhaps the best example comes from the most extensive attempt to refute my analysis, which appeared on the quasi-racialist website. Although several different arguments were made, the strongest and most detailed focused on an examination of the ethnic distribution of American SAT scores between 1980 and 2010, performed by another highly-quantitive racialist blogger. The article pointed out that there was virtually no net change in the substantial Hispanic/white performance gap on the SAT during those four decades. Since the SAT is a far better proxy for IQ than my Wordsum values, and the number of participants across those years number in the millions, any possibility of a large rise in Hispanic IQ would seem completely disproven. My claims had focused on American-born Mexican-Americans rather than Hispanics in general, but since the former group represented a large and rapidly growing portion of the latter, my argument would seem to have suffered a very serious blow.

However, this is incorrect. We must remember than only a fraction of the students in each ethnic group actually take the SAT, and this fraction tends to consist of the smartest and best prepared students. Most importantly, this fraction may sharply differ between ethnic groups and also change over time. With some effort, I managed to obtain the ethnic distribution of SAT test-takers back to 1975 and then compared these results with the ethnic distribution of 18-year-olds during those years, found in the Census-CPS data.

Just as I had suspected, the changes were dramatic. In 1975, 22% of whites took the SAT, and this had risen to 33% by 2011, a substantial rise of 50%. However, during these same decades, the percentage of Hispanic test-takers had grown from 6% to 32%, an enormous rise of over 400%. Thus, in 1975 white 18-year-olds were nearly four times more likely to take the SAT, but by 2011 the ratios were almost exactly the same. So during the decades in question, Hispanic SAT takers had shifted from being drawn from just the tiny academic elite of that group to being just as representative of their entire population as for white students. Since the white/Hispanic gap remained unchanged during this tremendous broadening of the Hispanic testing pool rather than greatly widening, the only possible explanation would seem to be a huge rise in average Hispanic academic performance, just as was reflected in the Wordsum-IQ scores. (My thanks to Razib Khan for locating the SAT and demographic data).

Thus, upon closer examination the SAT evidence cited for the alleged lack of Hispanic gains actually becomes very powerful evidence for strong Hispanic gains. And once again, none of this would have been brought to my attention without the dedicated research efforts of racialist partisans strongly opposing my conclusions.

Meanwhile, when I have examined the comment-threads of the tiny number of left-liberal websites which have discussed my article, I’ve obviously been gratified by the supportive atmosphere and friendly remarks, but I’ve almost never noticed anything of substantive let alone highly-technical value. Hence I tend to spend more of my time reading through the endless insults and attacks directed at my work in racialist sources, in realistic hopes of discovering information nuggets of major value. If anti-racialists wish to play a meaningful role in these debates rather than merely cheerleading from the sidelines, they would be well advised to invest some time and effect in familiarizing themselves with the quantitative and scientific issues involved.


Despite the very useful research role played by these racialist critics, I am obviously eager to also have my ideas also brought to the attention of a much wider and more mainstream audience, and this has now begun to happen. At the beginning of this week, my article received a strong endorsement from Andrew Sullivan, a prominent blogger at the Daily Beast/Newsweek, who had actually served as TNR Editor in 1994 when that magazine had originally promoted The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein. Yesterday my piece was republished by, one of the leading libertarian websites, while Slate’s Will Saletan had previously distributed a recommendation to his thousands of Twitter-followers very shortly after original release. Articles on controversial, racially-charged issues often have a long shelf-life, and my 2010 Hispanic Crime article, which proved quite influential, required a full year to accumulate roughly the same number of pageviews that my current piece has garnered in just a couple of weeks, which is certainly an encouraging sign.

Surprisingly enough, my IQ analysis has so far received virtually no coverage whatsoever from mainstream/establishment conservatives, although they must surely now be aware of it. Perhaps one reason might involve the serious fault lines within the broad conservative movement, whose elites and leading pundits may often have sharply different views on racially-connected topics from large slices of the conservative grass roots, whose votes they require for victory. Bear in mind that the publication of my article on the TAC website and elsewhere has drawn a huge outpouring of extremely angry comments, now numbering in the many hundreds, and these individuals would surely be just as infuriated by any other conservative media publication which discussed my IQ findings in a less than wholly dismissive manner.

Over the years, liberal journalists and pundits have repeatedly accused leading conservatives of following a “dog whistle” approach to politics, namely taking positions aimed at mobilizing and energizing the racialist portion of their political base while still using language which retains plausible deniability for the rest of the political world. Publicly endorsing the conclusion that ethnic/racial IQ differences are probably not nearly as wide or intractable as is generally believed in certain quarters might generate the sort of angry firestorm which could undo the benefits of many years of diligent “dog whistling.” So perhaps they believe a safer approach is just to hide in the cellar until the controversy blows over, and they can then reemerge to promote tax cuts and a strong national defense.

A very similar situation had occurred a couple of years ago following the publication of my Hispanic Crime article in 2010. In the weeks which followed, a massive public debate ensued, with heavy participation by racialists, paleo-conservatives, libertarians, and liberals, but with virtually no coverage by mainstream conservatives, presumably fearful of fracturing their ideological base. So while the Conservative Politburo met in endless special session to determine the party-line response and eventually decided to say nothing, the topic was thrashed out by everyone else on the Internet. Perhaps the mainstream conservative reaction to discussions of race and IQ will follow the same trajectory.


Finally, Prof. Lynn has now responded at great length to my article, and I have been informed that his rebuttal is scheduled for publication later today on the website of Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance, a leading racialist organization. In due course, I will certainly reply to his arguments.

(Republished from The American Conservative by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: IQ, Race/IQ 
The Race/IQ Series
Hide 9 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “If anti-racialists wish to play a meaningful role in these debates rather than merely cheerleading from the sidelines, they would be well advised to invest some time and effect in familiarizing themselves with the quantitative and scientific issues involved.”

    But it’s a non-issue, so most people don’t spend much time worrying about it.

    The anti-racialist view is that IQ results of groups tell us about the situation of those groups, not anything innate. That’s why IQ scores of a group can change so rapidly.

    Here’s Brad DeLong’s summary: “The average IQ score of America’s “white” population today is 100. According to Ulric Neisser, America’s “white” children in 1932 had an average today’s-test IQ score of 80. Dutch army conscripts in 1952 scored 30 IQ points lower than conscripts in 1982. Dickens and Flynn (2006) estimate that the African-American IQ test average rose by 6 points relative to the “white” average between 1972 and 2002. According to Brierley (1970), in the 1960s African-Americans from Ohio had an average IQ score greater than that of whites from Arkansas by 10 points. Thomas Sowell reports that in Northern Ireland the Catholic average lags the Protestant average by 15 IQ points.”

    This is old news. Your willingness to carefully parse the data is commendable, but your seeming surprise that most people aren’t that interested is unwarranted. It’s the same reason most scientists don’t spend time debunking the Intelligent Falling theory.

  2. Markus says:

    kudos for responsibly and fairly conducting this interesting and important dialogue.

  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “it happens, for nearly a decade it had seemed obvious to me that the likely conclusions to be drawn from Lynn’s data were exactly the opposite of those long believed by Lynn and his acolytes, and I think I have now forcefully made that case.”

    On one of those websites you deride, Lynn completely destroys that farce of an article you wrote – debunking it point by point.

    Case in point: “the first and only place I learned of evidence for the remarkably rapid recent rise of Mexican-American IQs”

    Lynn: “Contrary to these claims, there was no increase in the IQ of Hispanics relative to whites over the years 1986-2004 in a study by Ang, Rogers and Wanstrom (2010)”

    Unz is a liberal who opposed prop. 187. He is not a conservative.

  4. Liberals don’t talk about this in any detail because they’re largely innumerate, and hold the Blank Slate theory as a quasi-religious tenet. Mainstream conservatives don’t talk about it because they’re deathly afraid of being labeled racists (or “racialists” -what are we, on the Ali G. show here?). I don’t talk about it, because I’m busy trying to make a living and I really don’t think it matters much either way, either for national policy or for my personal life.

    I realize you’re trying to make this a conversation for the general public, but the stat nerd in me would like to know things like sample sizes, p-values, potential sample bias and so on. That would elevate it into the realm of science, rather than legalistic yacking. I mean, you do a little of this (averaging together a sample of 3500 with one of 75 is … preposterous), but there is room for a lot more. HBD types need honest criticism. Maybe there is a knowable answer in there. Certainly it is known that IQ is to some extent genetically limited, just as height and muscular strength is genetically limited. Whether or not this is observable in mean population IQs is the question at hand here; just to be clear.

    I’ve always thought the blank-slatists were intellectually dishonest buffoons. Then again, I’ve noticed that quite a few of the HBD crowd were quoting numbers that didn’t make much sense either, and were a little too … eager to get a certain answer. At least they use numbers though.

    A couple of wacky ideas I’d point out:
    1) Dietary iodine might explain a lot. American diets are chock full of it, thanks, in part to junk food.
    2) I don’t know what public health policy was like in Ireland when they ran those IQ tests, but fetal alcohol syndrome might play into this somehow.
    3) Assortative mating (or outbreeding selection) might have something to do with IQ increases. This is much more easily accomplished in an Urban environment.
    4) Speaking of assortative mating, since I’m part Irish, I’ll note that “Irish-American” is a pretty nebulous concept. If you asked me what my ethnicity was when I was a kid, I would have told you Irish. But … I’m actually more Scottish -the Irish relatives were simply louder and more insistent. According to the PCA on my gene tests, I’m genetically a sauerkraut eater. Self reporting ethnicity in the modern US is probably close to useless. To really compare Irish to Irish, you’d need to find *real* Irish Americans; not just GSS self-identified ones. Otherwise, you’re plastering over genetic facts here, and comparing Irish people to … Irish-German-Scottish-Jewish-Frog-eaters. Comparing them at points in time is also kind of helpful, since there is an alleged Flynn trend here.

    That’s all I have. I, for one, would rather think about hog futures. At least it is a well ordered problem.

  5. jtgw says:

    Why do people care so much? No doubt because the implications of the truth or falsehood of biological determinism in IQ for public policy are so great. You can’t have No Child Left Behind if in fact some children are going to be left behind no matter what you do. It seems there is a gap in public policy thinking if we can’t come up with sensible policies that will work regardless of whether IQ differences among races are primarily genetic or environmental.

  6. Ryan says:

    Almost 3 1/2 times as many whites took the SAT than did Hispanics. Considering Hispanics are at least 20% of the 15-20 year-old population and whites are less than 60%, Unz’s participation rate numbers must be off, or based only on those who are still in school. And the gap is the same relative to 1975, but it has widened since the mid-90s, even though Hispanics are more likely to take test-prep courses.

    In any case, Unz can not be taken seriously if he does not address the strongest parts of the racialist argument, such as the observation that i.q.s among the races regress to different means, or that larger brains are correlated with higher i.q. and the races rank in brain sizes the same as they rank in i.q. Nor does he address the lack of Hispanic social mobility over the generations. H*ll, he doesn’t even address i.q. results!

    Regarding you reflectionephemeral, you would be advised to stay out of this debate. The Flynn effect has no bearing on whether racial i.q. gaps are genetic or not. Flynn’s data on the narrowing of the black-white i.q. gap was not observed, but was a projection based on past gains, and the future gains never came. Study after study shows that relative black gains ended over a generation ago. The Ohio study was never replicated, and is thus of next to no value. What has been replicated is the constant racial gap. Again and again, place after place, decade after decade. But I suspect you’re more interested in these findings for use as talking-points than as paths to the truth, and so I reiterate my advice: stay out of the debate.

  7. Let’s just say that Unz is correct when he says: “Essentially, I am proposing that the enormously large differences in population IQ reported by Lynn are primarily due to factors of social environment–poverty, education, rural deprivation” (Unz on Race/IQ: Response to Lynn and Nyborg. I know Bell-Curve gospel is exactly opposite, but humor me that these are actually the primary causal factors for IQ differences.

    If this is true, then the fact that the average white/black IQ differential has hardly budged in 50 years or so is easily explained: the average white/black wealth differential has also hardly budged in 50 years or so. If we accept sociological data, then we can note that the The Racial Wealth Gap Increases Fourfold:

    New evidence reveals that the wealth gap between white and African American families has more than quadrupled over the course of a generation. Using economic data collected from the same set of families over 23 years (1984-2007), we find that the real wealth gains and losses of families over that time period demonstrate the stampede toward an escalating racial wealth gap.

    So it’s no surprise that there is a replicated, constant racial gap. There is also a replicated, constant (and perhaps even escalating) racial wealth gap.

  8. Severn says:

    A perfect example of this is found in my own recent Race, IQ, and Wealth article, in which nearly all of my IQ data was obtained from the published writings of Richard Lynn, a leading academic hero of racialists worldwide. As it happens, for nearly a decade it had seemed obvious to me that the likely conclusions to be drawn from Lynn’s data were exactly the opposite of those long believed by Lynn and his acolytes, and I think I have now forcefully made that case

    Your self-congratulation does get tedious. The counter-argument to Lynn was made by Flynn, who made it far better than you did and long before you did. I suggest you read his 1987 paper, “Massive IQ gains in 14 Nations: What IQ tests really measure”. It also debunks your notion that IQ results have not risen in Asian nations as they have in Europe.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Unz Comments via RSS